It is a curious quirk of human intellectual history that what first look like new and innovative ideas are oftentimes merely the resurrections of long discredited dogma. When novelist Dan Brown first published his bestseller, The Da Vinci Code, for example he was feted by Church-bashing secularist elites as a modern-day prophet; an agnostic David heroically felling the Goliath Church with the sling of his keyboard and the stone of his wit. In truth Brown’s attack on the historical Jesus and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church He founded were mere fictional retellings of the Arian and Nestorian heresies of old. Truly, as David’s son Solomon wrote, “…there is nothing new under the sun.” And this reference brings us round to the focus of this essay: the New Pagans, the intellectual and theological descendants of their forebears, the idolatrous worshipers of Earth, sea, and Sun.

Like their predecessors, these pagans worship not the Creator, but rather a pantheon of gods comprised of the created universe itself. Their enemies are not the Powers and Principalities about whom the Apostle Paul warns us, but rather mankind itself, those very beings – created in the image and likeness of God – for whom the material universe was called into being by the Word of God in the first place. For them Original Sin is not Adam and Eve’s transgression in the Garden, but rather human flourishing brought about by industry and technological progress. They believe not in the goodness of God’s original command to mankind “to be fruitful and increase in number; fill the Earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Their holy writ is not the Inspired Scriptures of the Christian Canon, but the writings of would-be tyrants such as Karl Marx, materialists such as Charles Darwin, environmentalists such as Rachel Carson, eugenicist’s such as Margaret Sanger, and whose principal prophet was Thomas Malthus – the British economist whose ideas on the negative impact of human population growth on the natural environment have been twisted into a rationale for the genocide of forced abortions and sterilizations by the likes of anti-humanists such as Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren. Lastly, their liturgy is scientism, that insidious variant of political philosophy which uses a seeming veneer of science to at once disguise and legitimize its underlying fascism, because as the Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said of the Soviet Union “The only great influence from the outside world the Soviets allow in is science; that’s because they can turn science back against the world.” This politicized pseudo-science is used by the New Pagans as a weapon to control and dominate others while enriching themselves.

Like all pagan cults, there is a priesthood of sorts which benefits from the rules it imposes on others while hypocritically ignoring those same dictates. For example, the pontifex maximus of the New Pagans, former American Vice President Al Gore has made a fortune measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars since leaving office by spreading and capitalizing on the myth of man-made global warming, urging others to reduce their “carbon footprint” while owning several massive, energy-guzzling mansions and flying all over the world on private jets in his attempt to force-feed his snake oil on the rest of us. He is supported on this crusade by fellow elites in the business community who’ve made even larger fortunes selling expensive and unwanted energy alternatives such as windmills and solar panels.

The magisterium of the New Pagans is the United Nation’s IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Through the IPCC and parallel efforts by its individual member states, the UN pushes this same myth through its studies and mandates in order to destroy global capitalism. As Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change said with respect to the UN’s climate change regulations, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” The global warming hypothesis is not now, nor was it ever about the environment; it’s about economics and politics.

In an ironic twist, however, the laity of this church of the New Pagans, the well-meaning, tree-hugging, nature worshiping devotees of the global warming myth misses the forest for the trees; in their zeal to save Mother Earth they accept on faith both the misdiagnosis of her problem and the wrong-headed prescription proposed to cure it – a reduction in carbon emissions to reduce global temperatures – a cure very much worse than the imaginary disease.

Their priesthood warns of a man-made environmental catastrophe resulting from industry’s emission of carbon dioxide, which the New Pagans have labeled a pollutant and green house gas, accusing it of causing the scourge of global warming. However, the food-chain on which all life on Earth depends requires the process of photosynthesis whereby carbon dioxide is consumed by plants by the light of the sun and as a byproduct produces the oxygen necessary to sustain all life.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it is a necessary and naturally occurring chemical compound without which life on Earth would be impossible. And the loss of industry and economic growth which would result from the reduction of “greenhouse gasses” would be devastating to all but the richest people on Earth – who not coincidentally happen to be the same self-serving elites pushing the global warming myth in the first place.

Let us assume for a moment the Earth really is warming due to the atmospheric carbon dioxide driven greenhouse effect the New Pagans describe. Would a theoretically warming planet be a catastrophe or a blessing? The truth of the matter is that a warming planet would be a great benefit to the Earth and all her biological inhabitants.

Throughout the history of civilization the greatest periods of human flourishing have coincided with what have been identified as warm periods in the geological record (the Renaissance, for example;) conversely the darkest and deadliest eras in history have occurred during periods of lower global temperatures (times of famine and plague.) This is because warmer climates are better suited for cultivated agriculture and natural plant growth – a fact to which anyone who has compared the topography of the Earths equator to its poles can attest. The worst-case scenario of global warming is that in the long-run coastal communities may have to move further inland or construct dikes to keep the sea at bay – a reasonable proposition considering modern engineering technologies. Conversely, a worst-case scenario involving falling global temperatures would include starvation and disease on a cataclysmic scale.

But is the Earth really burning up with fever? The simple fact is that the average temperature today is less than it was two decades ago despite all the predictions to the contrary made by the hand-wringing New Pagans. And the Antarctic ice caps have more ice by volume than ever before. So, unfortunately no, the Earth is not warming at all.

What impact does man have on the climate in any event? Very little; the Earth’s climate is determined largely the sun – its proximity and angle relative to the Earth (the driving force behind the changing seasons), and the intensity of the activity of the sun are what determine the climate on this planet as well as every other body in the solar system. In periods or cycles of increasing solar activity the planet warms; as solar activity decreases, the planet cools. This is a perfectly natural occurrence and has been happening throughout geological history.

We are often told that there is a near universal scientific consensus in support of the reality of man-caused or anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The fact remains there are thousands of brave credentialed scientists who have very publicly announced their opposition to this absurd hypothesis at great risk to their own reputations and prospects for future employment. One of these is Dr. Patrick Moore, founder of the environmental activist group Greenpeace. But, why is it so risky to oppose the AGW hypothesis publicly? Because most researchers working in fields related to the environmental sciences are affiliated in some way with the universities which are deeply dependent upon research grants from the same self-serving governments and NGO’s pushing the climate change scare in the first place. These grants are conditional and given only to those groups whose findings confirm or support the AGW hypothesis. Skeptics need not apply.

And what of those scientists who’ve sold their integrity to the highest grant-endowing bidder? How do they manage to predict the earth’s climate years and even centuries into the future? Even Nostradamus was never such a bold teller of misfortune. How are these Chicken Little, scare-mongering predictions of run-away, man-caused global warming resulting in melting ice caps and biblical deluges inundating helpless coastal communities and drowning hapless polar bears made, anyway? By creating computer programs and algorithms (no pun intended, Al Gore) that are very easily manipulated to produce the already predetermined outcome and which in no way conform to the true scientific method. That’s right, they write the program and choose the data to input and, voila! The sky is falling! They then seek to use these dire predictions of impending doom to legislate us all into poverty while they grow fat and rich.

The New Pagans have created a cult that preaches a gospel not of eternal salvation, but of temporal conservation; theirs is not an Apocalypse of hope as is the last book in the New Testament; rather it is a mythical dystopian future they cynically use to dominate, impoverish, and enslave. They seek to enforce compulsive misery on the people to atone for their supposed environmental sins, rather than preach the Gospel of voluntary and redemptive suffering a Christian trustingly endures and joins to the most Holy Cross of our Savior.

When the Almighty gave man dominion over the earth, He also gave us the responsibility to be faithful stewards of creation. But caring for the environment must not come at the cost of human misery, nor should it benefit a small cadre of elitists who cynically utilize our commendable concern for the welfare of our planet to dominate and impoverish us.

Before Christianity was brought to the Western Hemisphere by the Spaniards, the pagan Aztecs made blood sacrifices of innocent human beings to appease their angry and capricious gods. Untold thousands were slaughtered. The One True God put a stop to this barbarity through the agent of the Conquistadors. The New Pagans are more subtle, but no less deadly. They would have us stretch out not on a literal altar of death, but on one of poverty and subjection. The time has come to declare our independence from the cult of the New Pagans.

According to Catholic News Agency, Sean Cardinal O’Malley, along with a group of liberal activist Catholic Bishops, recently celebrated Mass at the U.S./Mexican border in support of American immigration amnesty legislation in which the Holy sacrifice of the Mass, along with the Sacred Species, the very Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ was passed through the border fence in a near blasphemous use of the Holy Eucharist for political purposes.

While I cannot verify this, I doubt very much whether the Mexican Bishops ever held a similar political Mass on their southern border with Guatemala where Mexico’s own barbaric and immoral immigration laws and corrupt officials, as a matter of course, routinely abuse, rob, and sexually assault Central and South American immigrants trying desperately to traverse Mexico to emigrate to the United States. In contrast, relatively liberal U.S. immigration policy coddles and protects illegal immigrants to the detriment of legal immigrants and American citizens alike.

Moreover I can find no instance of Cardinal O’Malley offering Mass in front of a Planned Parenthood abortion mill wherein the objectively evil act of child murder is performed on a daily basis. No, instead of restricting his distasteful use of the Mass to advance his political agenda to a forum in which the activity he is protesting is actually objectively and gravely evil, he irreverently (to be charitable) uses the Mass to advance his own leftist agenda on a matter that is a mere question of prudential judgment by the faithful. That is, a Catholic may not in good conscience support or condone abortion; it is simply not allowed. Procured abortion is always considered a grave moral evil which cries out to Heaven for justice and must be opposed by all Catholics. A nation’s immigration policy is, on the other hand, a matter of prudential judgment; that is, it is an issue that faithful Catholics may have any good-faith opinion about and stay in good standing with the Church.

While self-righteously lamenting the lives lost by the poor souls who attempt the very risky desert border crossing, never does the Cardinal mention the fact that it is the very vocal public support by liberal politicians and clergy for immigration amnesty legislation in the U.S. that causes so many immigrants to risk their lives in the hope of evading interdiction and earning a place in the next round of amnesty. I would argue that it is amnesty supporters who have caused the loss of life among these desperate people, not its opponents. Moreover, while it is of course appropriate for the Cardinal to lament the loss of life along the border, he fails to mention the thousands of people who become the victims of violent crime, ranging from robbery, sexual assault, and murder to vehicular homicide by drunk drivers committed by illegal aliens in America.

Perhaps the Cardinal and all American clergy should stick to questions of faith and morals and stay away from matters of economics and politics; because in their ignorance they embarrass themselves and along with them all faithful Catholics who disagree with their leftist drivel.

The lunatics have truly taken over the asylum when the marriage pact, the most ancient institution in human history – pre-dating government itself – and the bedrock foundation of all civilization is now being defined by majority rule, and in some cases, by judicial fiat, rather than by the Natural Law. No longer is the marriage contract based on sexual and procreative complementarity as nature – and nature’s God – intended; marriage is now based on whatever barbaric act of sodomy the left chooses to normalize. But as Edward Peters has pointed out, these innovative new interpretations of the marital union – such as a man marrying another man – are not merely forbidden; they are impossible. Marriage is what it is and no more. It cannot be redefined, only destroyed.

Yet in spite of the manifest impossibility of altering this Divinely ordained institution, we are now expected, nay required, to suspend the use of both our faculty of reason and the Voice of conscience to accept the bizarre premise that two men rectally assaulting each other for their own twisted pleasure is equivalent to the procreative conjugal act between a man and his wife within the bounds of Holy Matrimony (because let’s face it, any activity that results in the exchange of blood and fecal matter, but can never result in conception is, by definition, not a sexual act; it is an assault – regardless of consent.) And anyone who dares to disagree with this madness is not merely wrong, but guilty of discrimination, our betters now insist.

The truth of the matter is that any definition of marriage outside the Natural Law (procreative complementarity) is completely arbitrary. At what point is this arbitrarily drawn line going to come under attack by the next crop of politically active perverts who crave a public stamp of approval for their own bizarre fetish? How long will it be before the left is no longer satisfied with merely normalizing male-on-male anal sodomy? Which “alternative lifestyle” will the left demand we normalize next? Will it be polyamory (any combination of multiple adults marrying each other), or pederasty (an adult male marrying a boy,) or pedophilia (any adult–child marriage)? Will it be incest or bestiality; or how about a woman marrying a building or a bridge?

This oft-ridiculed ‘slippery slope’ argument is legitimate because, since any definition of marriage outside the Natural Law is completely arbitrary, it is therefore discriminatory. This is what makes the issue so ironic: by excluding all these other relationships, those championing an expanded definition of marriage outside the Natural Law – ostensibly on the grounds of fairness – are themselves the only ones actually discriminating. Eventually they will have to acknowledge this and their efforts to right this new wrong will commence. This will ultimately and inevitably lead to one of the two only possible logical conclusions: a return to the true Natural Law marriage definition or the complete elimination of the marriage pact altogether in any form.

The activists, though they are loath to admit it publicly, know this. The fact is, the long-term goal of these leftists isn’t expanding marriage at all, but rather destroying it by defining it so broadly it loses all meaning. Because once marriage is destroyed the family is destroyed with it and into this vacuum steps the all-powerful state, which was their true goal all along.

This issue (destroying the family unit) is part of the larger project of the progressive left: to replace the influence of individuals, parents, families, the Church, and local civic institutions with that of the state. Their goal all along has been to attack the very Catholic and very American concept of subsidiarity – one of the central bulwarks of American liberty. It (replacing family sovereignty with state power) also explains no-fault divorce laws, Obama-care, welfare, public education (especially the federal common-core curriculum), and so much else. It is why Hilary Clinton once wrote a book called “It Takes a Village (to raise a child.)” It is why she supported the right of kids to sue their parents: because it places the state between and above the family.

Having analyzed the left’s true motivation in destroying marriage, let us now consider what the Catholic Church, for its part, teaches on the nature of sin generally and on the human condition, and how it relates to this controversial issue.

Sin, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is defined as:

[A]n offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.

The Church affirms and teaches that all men are, due to Original Sin, engaged in a daily struggle against the temptation to commit sin, to surrender to baser appetites contrary to reason and conscience. This tendency scholars call concupiscence. And just as human beings come in all shapes and sizes and with widely diverse physical attributes, ailments, and conditions, so too do they manifest different inclinations toward sin – both in degree and in kind. That is, for example, some are more tempted by sins against purity (lust) while others less so; some are more susceptible to sins against humility (pride) than others; and some struggle more than others with temptations to sin against temperance or moderation (gluttony.)

For our purposes and by way of example let us consider two very common sins of which we are all often guilty (or at least frequently tempted): lust and gluttony. Both are sins related to the bodily, carnal appetites and each can manifest itself in different ways. Lust is most often associated with the inordinate desire for sexual pleasure, while gluttony usually concerns itself with food or drink. Neither of these objects: sexuality (properly ordered towards marital procreation) and food are necessarily sinful in themselves; rather they become sinful when they are desired or consumed in a way that is either disordered or excessive. In other words, a ‘perverse attachment’ to these goods can cause sin.

The Church has always taught that human sexuality is a gift from God and a means through which men can become cooperators with God as Creator, hence the term procreation. The Church has always affirmed and taught that all sex outside of marriage is sinful and must be avoided. Clearly, Church teaching on sexuality is not maliciously directed merely at same-sex couples, but at all illicit sexual activity. Sex must be exclusively between husband and wife and open to life.

Through the marital act offspring are brought forth in satisfaction of God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply.” These offspring are then meant to be raised by their parents as members of the ‘domestic Church’, the family. Human sexuality, then, is more than a mere physically pleasurable act biologically necessary for the propagation of the human race; it has been elevated by God to something greater.

Likewise, the consumption of food and drink is more than just a biologically necessary function of the human body; it also bears great cultural and even religious significance. Indeed, sharing meals as a family or as a community of families satisfies both our physical need for sustenance and our very human need for friendship and social interaction. Our biological human need for food is thus elevated to something more. Moreover, the fact that eating is enjoyable to us in itself encourages us to do it and thus maintain bodily health just as the physical enjoyment of sexuality encourages procreation.

Both of these human goods (sexuality and consumption) are, from the perspective of teleology, gifts from God bearing both physical and spiritual significance and are objectively good when rightly ordered; that is, when they are practiced in moderation and used for their true purpose guided by the Christian virtues of charity, temperance, prudence, and chastity, they can bring great joy and enrichment while being pleasing to the Almighty. On the other hand, when misused or abused in a disordered way, a person is in danger of falling into sin and all of its resultant consequences, both temporal and eternal. Let us examine each in turn.

Very few people today would argue that bulimia and anorexia are not eating disorders. To eat to gross excess, purposefully vomit to empty the stomach, then to eat some more is neither natural nor healthy; neither is it healthy to starve oneself in a misguided attempt to be skinny and attractive. This is not how nature intended the human person to sustain himself; rather these conditions are disordered corruptions of a natural human good. They are both dangerous to one’s health and unnatural and may also under certain conditions constitute the sins of gluttony and/or pride – that is, sins against temperance or humility, respectively; and just as the natural good of eating can be corrupted or abused in a way that is harmful and/or sinful, so too can the natural good of human sexuality. And in both cases our response should be to help someone so afflicted to overcome their sickness, not confirm them in it.

If someone you loved was systematically starving themselves while complaining of being fat and unattractive, would you encourage them to eat or would you exacerbate their problem by saying “you look great! Whatever diet you’re on is working for you, keep it up”? If someone you loved was binging and purging, would you help them overcome this problem or simply accept their lifestyle choice and place a bucket next to their place at the dinner table? Similarly, if you sat down for dinner and someone you love began shoving spoonful’s of mashed potatoes in their ear, would you shrug your shoulders and ignore this obviously bizarre and self-destructive behavior?

Would you not lovingly seek help for a friend with an eating disorder? Is that not the charitable Christian thing to do, to help someone in need rather than confirming them in their error and perpetuating its consequent problems? The fact of the matter is that it is no act of charity to practice blind tolerance of or open-mindedness to such behavior; as Flannery O’Connor once said, “sometimes people can be so open-minded that their brains fall out.” Both common sense and true Christian charity dictate we should help those suffering with sexual disorders just as we would help those with eating disorders. But why don’t we?

Because few are willing or courageous enough to admit that homosexuality and other psycho-sexual disorders are, in fact, disorders at all. This is regrettably true for the same reason that Internet Use Disorder (IUD or internet addiction) is now included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders while homosexuality no longer is: politics. There is no massive PR campaign or militant lobbying group championing the cause of internet addiction any more than there is for anorexia or bulimia. People who oppose internet addiction are not ridiculed, mocked, or called hateful, bigoted, or intolerant. On the other hand, people who hold to the self-evident truth that homosexuality and other illicit sexual behaviors are disordered are simply not tolerated; they are shunned, attacked, and discriminated against. This, I submit, is why opinion polls increasingly show wider support for gay unions over time. People are afraid to voice a counter-cultural opinion which puts them in the cross-hairs of the thought police. Moreover, the left won’t even debate these issues because when they do they lose: their arguments fall apart with just a little scrutiny. Instead they call you a bigot. End of discussion.

Unlike those of us on the political right, those on the left tend to take the long-term view, while the right debates issues one at a time and out of context. The marriage issue is no different. What we on the right have failed to point out to the public is what the lefts long-term strategy really is: expanded state power. The destruction of marriage is merely a means to this end.

Our leftist opponents in this particular debate – whom I like to call the Alphabet Soup Nazis (those who are militantly forcing the LBGT agenda down our throats) – believe not in freedom, but conformity. They are why reparative therapy (curing same-sex attraction through counseling) is now illegal in several states; they are why businesses that decline to participate in same-sex ‘marriages’ are being shut down by the government. They are the ones that are forcing schools to allow boys to use girls’ restrooms (if they ‘self-identify’ as girls) despite the protests of concerned parents.

If freedom is to survive, these neo-fascist bullies hell-bent on destroying the institution of Holy Matrimony must be resisted and challenged by men and women of good will. The Natural Law, the eternal truths authored by the Divine Architect that used to unite us, that comprised the philosophical basis for our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the seedbed upon which our civilization grew must be respected and defended if our free country is to survive, let alone thrive. This effort begins with the defense of marriage

According to media reports, the Obama administration is considering aiding the rebels fighting to depose Syria’s Shiite-Muslim dictator Bashar Assad by providing them with arms and other support. Since Assad is a tyrant this may sound like a good idea; that is, until you consider who these rebels are. Their main fighting arm consists of members of the Sunni-Islamic terrorist groups Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood offshoot, Hamas.

On the other side of this conflict, Assad is allied with the Shiite-Islamic terrorist group Hezbollah and its state sponsor Iran. In other words, two rival Islamic sects, with their associated terrorist groups and state sponsors, are at war with each other and Obama, rather than allowing these two belligerent enemies of the West to exhaust themselves fighting each other, is poised to ally the United States with one of these head-chopping jihadist groups by arming them with state-of-the-art weapons systems that will eventually be used against us.

This is very similar to the debacle scenario that played out in Benghazi, Libya. As reported by Roger Simon, we now know that the purpose of Ambassador Chris Stevens’ secret trip to Libya was to recover the high-tech surface-to-air missiles and other arms the US State Department – on the orders of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and against the advice of the defense and intelligence communities – secretly sold to the rebels fighting against then Libyan dictator, Mohammar Qaddafi. These rebels were of course actually radical Islamic terrorists and were apparently in no mood to gratefully return these weapons to Mr. Stevens upon the death of Qaddafi. This may be why the administration sent no help to the ambassador and his staff when they came under attack: it was an illegal and covert operation gone bad and dead men tell no tales.

Since Recent intelligence suggests that al-Qaeda now has its hands on advanced surface-to-air missile systems capable of taking down commercial airliners, I guess we know where those Benghazi weapons ended up. The bad news is that thanks to the Obama White House, terrorists can now take down civilian airliners without stepping anywhere near an airport; the good news is that this fact now renders the TSA obsolete.

After the assault on the US delegation in Benghazi ended with four brave Americans dying alone and abandoned by their country, the administration immediately went into spin mode, blaming a videotape for the whole bloody conflagration. They even went so far as to send its innocent scapegoat producer to prison without trial as a compliant and incurious lapdog media ate up this absurd cover story without question. This story is now unraveling, but at least they’ve learned their lesson: always sell arms openly to Islamic terrorist groups and for good measure give it the appearance of bi-partisanship by recruiting the support of hapless RINO’s like John McCain!

This strategy of arming revolutionaries in the Middle East is also consistent with the policy debacle in Egypt wherein the administration backed the rabble opposing US ally Hosni Mubarak and eventually leading to his ouster by what turned out to be the Muslim Brotherhood, the Sunni-Islamic terrorist group that now controls the billions of dollars’ worth of US arms we have been providing Egypt over the years.

To sum up this administrations Middle East foreign policy, let’s review: when a true grass-roots movement of secular pro-Western liberals in Iran challenged the Mullahs iron grip on power, Obama did nothing while the movement was crushed with ruthless and brutal efficiency. Soon thereafter, when Islamic terrorists revolted against US ally Hosni Mubarak, we backed the terrorists. It was only after handing Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood that Obama decided to once again choose sides in an internecine Muslim conflict, this time in Libya in favor of the radical Islamic terrorists against Mohammar Qaddafi. Now in Syria, once again Obama is poised to back one band of America-hating Islamic terrorists in a civil war against another band of America-hating Islamic terrorists. They call this the Arab Spring; let’s just hope it doesn’t turn into an Arab Nuclear Winter!

Coincidentally, this is the same strategy employed by President Carter in the 1970’s via-a-vis Iran; a policy which ushered in the modern iteration of jihad among pious Muslims, starting with our new friends holding 52 American hostages for 444 days. They’ve since gotten bolder; and much more violent.

Not content to arm only hyper-violent Muslim terrorists half a world away, this gang also ran Operation Fast and Furious, the program under which the Obama Administration sold thousands of semi-automatic “assault rifles” to known Mexican narcoterrorists right on our own southern border. Ironically, he did all this gun-running while simultaneously attacking the right of US citizens to keep and bear arms. The weapons this administration sold to the Mexican drug cartels under this program have been used to murder hundreds of Mexican citizens and at least two US lawmen, so far – that we know of.

Cumulatively, these facts beg two questions: whose side are these assholes on, anyway? And when can we expect the articles of impeachment?